Abstract

We identify uncertainties and knowledge gaps of chemical risk assessment related to unconventional drillings and propose adaptations. We discuss how chemical risk assessment in the context of unconventional oil and gas (UO&G) activities differs from conventional chemical risk assessment and the implications for existing legislation. A UO&G suspect list of 1,386 chemicals that might be expected in the UO&G water samples was prepared which can be used for LC-HRMS suspect screening. We actualize information on reported concentrations in UO&G-related water. Most information relates to shale gas operations, followed by coal-bed methane, while only little is available for tight gas and conventional gas. The limited research on conventional oil and gas recovery hampers comparison whether risks related to unconventional activities are in fact higher than those related to conventional activities. No study analyzed the whole cycle from fracturing fluid, flowback and produced water, and surface water and groundwater. Generally target screening has been used, probably missing contaminants of concern. Almost half of the organic compounds analyzed in surface water and groundwater exceed TTC values, so further risk assessment is needed, and risks cannot be waived. No specific exposure scenarios toward groundwater aquifers exist for UO&G-related activities. Human errors in various stages of the life cycle of UO&G production play an important role in the exposure. Neither at the international level nor at the US federal and the EU levels, specific regulations for UO&G-related activities are in place to protect environmental and human health. UO&G activities are mostly regulated through general environmental, spatial planning, and mining legislation.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work is part of the research program “Shale Gas & Water” with project number 859.14.001, which is financed by the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO) and the drinking water companies Brabant Water, Oasen, and Waterleiding Maatschappij Limburg.

Brack W, Dulio V, Ågerstrand M et al (2017) Towards the review of the European Union water framework management of chemical contamination in European surface water resources. Sci Total Environ 576:720–737Google Scholar

Brady WL, Crannell JP (2012) Hydraulic fracturing regulation in the United States: the Laissez-Faire approach of the Federal Government and varying state regulations. Vermont J Environ Law 14:39–70Google Scholar

Clark CE, Veil JA (2009) Produced water volumes and management practices in the United States. Argonne National Laboratory ANL/EVS/R-09-1. In: Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory, September, p 64. http://www.ead.anl.gov/pub/dsp_detail.cfm?PubID=2437

Grant MF (2016) A critical assessment of the U.S. Environmental regulation of shale gas development – what can be learned from the U.S. experience? Edinburgh Law School working paper 2016/1Google Scholar

US EPA (2015) Assessment of the potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing for oil and gas on drinking water resources. Office of Research and Development, US Environmental Protection Agency, WashingtonGoogle Scholar

US EPA (2016) Hydraulic fracturing for oil and gas: impacts from the hydraulic fracturing water cycle on drinking water resources in the United States. Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, WashingtonGoogle Scholar